Public Sin Requires Public Confrontation and Public Apology

While Mark Driscoll quietly removed his offensive post about “anatomically-male effeminate worship leaders” from his Facebook page, he has issued no apology or admission of error.

{Edited at 5pm EDT to add the following:}
Finally this afternoon, Mark posted a statement regarding his Facebook and Twitter behavior, admitting he didn’t handle it well. While I’m pleased that he addressed it, I’m disappointed that he didn’t specifically say, “I was wrong, I encouraged others to do wrong, please forgive me.” This is what we teach and practice in our family. I know how painful it is to say those words — I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve had to say them to my kids, husband, friends, and on my blog. I also know how restorative it is. I encourage him to consider taking this additional step towards restoration.

I’ve been accused of hypocrisy for publicly calling for an apology, both here on my blog and on Twitter (though so far, for me, the conversations have been civil).

Sadly, I cannot say the same for Rachel or the others who have taken to their blogs with similar calls for Mark to apologize and change.

Tell me how taking to my personal blog, where I have a few hundred regular visitors, to explain how his Facebook post was hurtful and inciting others to sin is the same thing as him posting a call for mocking stories about other people on a Facebook wall with 112,000+ followers?

When you are a public figure and you make a public mistake that involves the public, it is absolutely appropriate for those who see it for what it is to confront it publicly. In fact, I would argue that as Mark’s brothers and sisters in Christ, it is our responsibility to call it sin. Otherwise, we are complicit in the name-calling, gossip, and slander he encouraged his followers to participate in.

I’m still hoping, waiting, and praying that Mark will make a public statement admitting his sin and asking for forgiveness. I believe with God, all things are possible.

36 Comments

1) that folks are insulated from criticism if they are Christians
2) that the Matthew 18 principles apply to public figures making public statements.

If these things were true then it would mean no one could write blog posts against, say, President Obama’s policies, because he is a Christian. 🙂

When a pastor, a politician, a writer, or a blogger gains popularity and followers, they become accountable for what they say in public. A public image comes with extra responsibility, which is all the more reason to be careful and prayerful and willing to apologize when mistakes are made.

I completely agree–public behavior warrants a public apology. What bothers me most about this whole fiasco is the how quickly it has devolved into a pissing contest, rallying of followers throwing poo at each side especially toward the people like you and Rachel and Alise who are offering grace to the other side.

It makes me very sad that the Christian blog world has exploded in condemnation toward another believer. I do NOT agree with what he said, nor do I disagree that it would be a wise choice for him to issue a straight forward apology. However, all the people who have been given a “platform” because of social media that are now crucifying him… do any of you actually KNOW Mark? Do any of you have a personal relationship with him? Do you trust the body of Christ around him to hold him accountable? Is it up to YOU to convict & change him? Is his growth in the way he speaks YOUR responsibility? I am not saying that it does not sting to hear a brother in Christ use offensive language, it certainly does. I will not negate the importance of a leader with Mark’s influence checking himself thoroughly before speaking in a public forum. HOWEVER…. at the end of the day, has it occurred to anyone that we might be making a mockery out of following Jesus for not only those who do not know Jesus, but also those who DO know Him who recognize that this behavior simply doesn’t add up with the message of humility, love & grace?

Best advice I’ve ever received…
“If you must err, err on the side of grace.”

*and as a side note, when I say “you” in this comment, I am not directly referring to YOU (the author of this blog), rather to many people who, in my opinion, have handled this situation with a lacking of humility, wisdom & grace.

“Tell me how taking to my personal blog, where I have a few hundred regular visitors, to explain how his Facebook post was hurtful and inciting others to sin is the same thing as him posting a call for mocking stories about other people on a Facebook wall with 112,000+ followers?”

Since you asked, I’ll provide a response.

First, the number of people on your blog versus Mark is irrelevant. Both statements were made in public, both of them were critical of someone (Mark not directed at any one person, yours pointed at him) and both of them invited condemnation of the subject of the comment/posting. It doesn’t matter if you have one reader or a million. Christ certainly wouldn’t give someone a pass on sin just because only one person saw it versus more than that number.

Second, you (and Rachel & other Driscoll critics) appear to turn a blind eye when the same kind of language style and bully tactics are being used by bloggers with whom you agree on political and theological issues such as gender/sexuality issues. I love Matthew Paul Turner as a person but he’s made tweets and postings on his blog that rival what Driscoll posted in terms of mocking tone and bully level insults. I (and others) didn’t see you or Rachel or any other blogger with more liberal views calling for him to make a public apology or repent of mocking conservative leaning Christians in public. And if you want to play numbers, he has over 46,000 twitter followers. That’s more people than fill some sporting arenas. Why do you give him a pass but Driscoll is way out of line?

The fact that so many of the Driscoll critics make excuses for why bully tactics and insults from liberally leaning Christians are OK but it’s not for Mark Driscoll is what’s feeding the charges of hypocrisy.

Also, many of those calling out Driscoll didn’t say a word about bullying until it happened to people or teens who identified themselves as gay. When children were being bullied for being smart, wearing glasses, being poor, etc. you didn’t hear a word from them on the degree you’re seeing it when someone might be slighting someone who identifies as gay. That calls into question whether you really are concerned about bullying as you say or just bullying in certain situations. Again, that puts you in a place to look as if your positions are hypocritical.

Joy, you know from our twitter conversations that I like you, respect you and even when we disagree don’t want to silence or eliminate your voice. However, in this situation, the critics have valid basis upon which to accuse you of a hypocritical position.

AndrewFinden
on July 14, 2011 at 4:05 pm

While there were some responses that were hypocritical and not rebukes done in love and humility and grace, I don’t think Joy’s was one of them.

But of course, if we’re to take you’re line: aren’t you just guilty of what you’re accusing Joy of?

In this post? No. She asked a question in a public blog inviting a response with a publicly open commenting section. If she did not want her question answered in public, she should have turned off comments or requested her posting be answered privately.

I hear what you are saying in this. However, as a pastor, everything I do is public. If I don’t want that, I need to have very private email, Facebook, and other accounts, so I can be a non-public human being, apart from my ministry self. If I am going to be public, I have the full expectation that people will confront me publicly. That is part of the deal. Just like the commenter above stated, there is biblical precedence for this in Paul’s very public confrontation of Peter.

In other words, I see what you are saying about the numbers, but there is good support for people refusing to be bullied by pastoral leaders and calling them out publicly. I also blog, besides pastoring a church, and I know that people will not always agree with me. I cannot, when someone does publicly call me out, then scream, “I’m a Pastor!”, “Matthew 18!” or “Hypocrite!” Matthew 18 does not apply here. Matthew 18 is all about when a brother or sister personally sins against you, bringing it to you in love. Sometimes I am intentionally caustic, just to get Christians to wake up and be provoked to care and take action. Very seldom does a person do that. I am untouchable. I am a pastor.

No, Driscoll is a divisive, chauvinistic, very public pastor, who intentionally takes on a persona, much like Rush Limbaugh. He is a shock-based entertainer, and he is not untouchable. He is publicly offensive, so he should answer publicly. I would expect no less for my behavior, so it would be hypocritical for me to give him a pass.

Finally, I have been reading Joy’s blog for a while now. She has never once spoken a word, including now, that would betray a hidden hypocrisy in her own heart. She has been above reproach, and continues to be so.

AndrewFinden
on July 14, 2011 at 4:17 pm

So what if it’s public? She didn’t say or ask for anyone to say anything sinful.

“Second, you (and Rachel & other Driscoll critics) appear to turn a blind eye when the same kind of language style and bully tactics are being used by bloggers with whom you agree on political and theological issues such as gender/sexuality issues.”

I think this is far from true. I consider Joy a blogging friend, but she and I certainly don’t see eye to eye on everything, gender roles and identity being one of them. And yet, we were able to put aside those particular disagreements when a common wrong needed to be addressed. It is not bullying to frankly speak out when something is obviously wrong, lest the situation between St. Peter and St. Paul be reduced to a game of thrones. Rebuke is supported in the Scriptures, rebuke is also sometimes put in harsh, direct terms. Drawing on King David, since he seems to be the fan favorite biblical character in this discussion, Nathan was given a pretty direct word on exactly what to call David out on.

Joy did an excellent job focusing on how asking that kind of question invited speculation, gossip, and malice to the edification of no one. No one in the Christian body walked away better for having been asked that question. Rachel did an excellent job of not soft-shoeing around a statement that was not only insensitive but vile. (I ask you to consider the heartache and hardship hundreds and thousands of Christian families face when dealing with a child who may express same sex attraction, how much they already have to depend on God’s mercy and grace and for the church to be a place where they can feel the comfort of support as they try to be good disciples and overcome temptation.) And for my own part, I through a bit of snark to make a serious point, found it appalling that Driscoll essentially equated a mannerism with a driving force in someone’s potential damnation, essentially making it a sin. This was perhaps a great expression of Christian community, because it saw a number of people who do not agree — I am not a liberal, I did not sign the petition Rachel suggested be signed apologizing to the LGBT community — willing to stand beside one another and through diverse talents — Paul was snarky often, Peter was a hammer, James was mystical, John a poet, and so and so on — communicate legitimate heartache for the damage that can come when one who sets himself up as a preacher of the Word stops being a doer in the process.

There are many things Driscoll has said that turn my stomach, but I was never compelled to actually act beyond prayer until I had read that question. The night I read it, I thanked God for the ministry he has done, the good ministry, prayed for his direction, but also asked that God would help me forgive him for saying what I believe is an invitation to bully members of the Body who already struggle. Because I could ask this question: “So, what story do you have of the most lascivious music leader you ever personally experienced?”

Because I have a story. But I also have a desire for that to be redeemed, not turned into a talk piece to promote a new venture.

If Joy is a hypocrite, I’m in a lot of trouble, because she was certainly more gracious than I. But then again, I’m a man, so I get to be more outspoken. 😉

Bill, I never referenced Matthew 18 nor was it the basis of my posting. I know a lot of the people making the hypocrisy argument are trying to base it on Matthew 18 but that’s not really applicable in this situation even if someone wants to try and say it’s a case of a sin against an individual.

The issue here is whether it’s OK to ignore the behavior in those we agree with theologically or politically while creating an issue when that same type of behavior is used by someone we disagree with theologically or politically. In reality, it has little to do with what Driscoll actually said or whether or not he should be held to account for it. He should be. However, if someone is going to step up publicly and demand that kind of rebuke of someone in public with whom they disagree theologically or politically, the question as to why that same kind of behavior from public figures who they agree with is not also being called to the same type of repentance.

Also, these blogs are not private. They are in the public arena and they can reach people the same as Pastor Mark or me or you. You do not know who will read it and how your words will impact them. It doesn’t matter if you have one reader or 46,000 readers or 114,000 readers. The exact same standard of measurement should be used because Jesus never said that there was a minimum of people who have to hear us before we’re accountable for the actions that we take.

If you want to bring Scripture into it, perhaps Proverbs 16:1 would be applicable verse: “The Lord demands accurate scales and balances; he sets the standards for fairness.” If we do not hold those with whom we agree politically or theologically to the same standard of conduct that we hold those with whom we disagree we are in a state of sin by using an unequal measure to judge what is and is not Christ-honoring behavior.

What Driscoll is or is not is irrelevant to the core issue. It doesn’t matter if we like Mark or hate Mark or like or hate anyone. The question comes down to whether or not behavior called sinful is measured equally or not in all circumstances or if we tip the scales in favor of those we like because they say what we like to hear.

Many people “defending” Driscoll are seeing people who routinely ignore bully style postings from those on the more liberal side of the theological spectrum screaming for Driscoll’s metaphorical head. If you expect people to join with you to ask Driscoll to clean up his house, then you better not be coming up with excuses as to why your house is being trashed.

I’ve read Joy’s blog for a while just like you. I’ll agree that she has never spoken a word that would betray a hidden hypocrisy. But that’s exactly the point of those who see hypocrisy here: they see the hypocrisy in the silence because it’s in that silence that those with whom they agree are using the same Driscoll like tactics.

Preston, by clipping that paragraph, you completely misrepresented the point. The issue is whether or not the same level of accountability is being called for with whom they agree theologically; critics have found bloggers and authors with large followings who use the same style as Driscoll who have elicited silence from those critical of Driscoll.

You wrote “It is not bullying to frankly speak out when something is obviously wrong.” That is true. It’s also hypocrisy is you don’t speak out when the behavior used is also being used by those with whom you agree. That’s wherein the problem tends to lie; someone will think a person is not wrong and thus does not see similar behavior to be bullying in nature.

It’s not about the comment of Driscoll. When looking at the point of hypocrisy in the debate the actual comment is irrelevant. It’s not about the people you want to call me to “consider” (as if you seem to think I’m some heartless human being with no compassion and don’t consider them). They play a part here although it’s not the one you’re trying to bring in; the part they play is whether or not you only speak out when they’re the subjects of perceived bullying and you remain silent when it’s other people being subjected to it.

It’s about whether or not the same standard of conduct is applied; if it’s not, then hypocrisy is a valid claim to make. Jesus wouldn’t give one person a pass for a sin that he would call out another person for doing. We can’t do that either no matter who the people involved might be and we all fall into that trap many times.

Let me throw in that there are those more liberally-leaning who are seeing that same hypocrisy in silence in those not holding Driscoll to account. It’s not restricted to those calling out Driscoll. It’s rampant in the Christian community. If anything, a lot of the vocal pro-Driscoll-ists did the same tired, childish crap to Rob Bell.

“The issue here is whether it’s OK to ignore the behavior in those we agree with theologically or politically while creating an issue when that same type of behavior is used by someone we disagree with theologically or politically.”

that’s not the issue at all. just because Liberal Pastor/Blogger/Christian X is a sinner, too, doesn’t mean driscoll or anyone else gets a free pass when he says something flagrantly sinful and hurtful to the Body of Christ. his behavior is not irrelevant to the core issue–it IS the issue right now. yes, we need to be humble and repentant about the sin in our own hearts/churches/camps, but the He’s A Sinner Too! card is a flimsy excuse to not address and consider the issue at hand–that extra-biblical, cultural notions of masculinity are pretending and parading as biblical prescriptives and doing damage to the Bride of Christ.

as for the gay bullying thing, why oh why can’t the Church say admit that ALL bullying–even gay bulling!–IS wrong–and that we have contributed to it by our actions and silence both. gay bulling is an issue because of all the kids who have killed themselves–some of whom weren’t gay but it doesn’t even matter because being quiet or skinny or weird or artistic is enough to be considered “queer” or a “fag.” that taunting–gay or not–HURTS, and even if we think that gay sex is a sin–demeaning, tormenting, and bullying is horrible and sinful and the Church ought to be on the front lines of grace and the side of the hurting–not the powerful.

You have illustrated my point perfectly. I did not say you said anything about Matthew 18. I was simply listing all of the common defenses used to protect Mark Driscoll in this. I realize that you were saying that your issue is with only attacking people the particular blogger doesn’t like.

Again, as a public persona, I have the expectation that I am going to take flack from people who don’t like my theology or disagree with me. Because I expect it, it would be hypocritical to not give it as well. I was saying that there is no basis for the hypocrisy charge against Joy. Read all of her posts, as I have. She has never deleted comments that were critical of her posts, unless they were needlessly abusive. Therefore, she has every right to criticize. She is willing to take it, so she has earned the right to give it.

As far as not saying anything about people with which these “Hypocrites” agree, that goes without saying. I like Rob Bell. I don’t agree with everything Rob Bell says, but I take the time to read his books. Then, with an informed opinion, I speak what I see as the truth. Joy has never said a negative thing about Driscoll, until he became publicly bullying and attacking. I happen to disagree with just about everything Driscoll does. I have never spoken out about him. When people have asked me about my thoughts on him, I have always said that he is serving God exactly as he sees fit.

However, attacking Rob Bell is unwarranted, because Rob Bell NEVER attacks anyone publicly. He asks questions. He writes books. Some are good, and some are rather lame. But he would NEVER be publicly divisive and attacking of people. He would never make sweeping judgments and be bullying others. Of course there isn’t going to be a public outcry about Bell’s sin, because he is not publicly flaunting his sin. This has nothing to do with support or non support on the parts of those you label as hypocrites. I could love everything Driscoll has ever written or said, but this is a public sin that requires public repentance. That’s it.

BTW, that was a misuse of that scripture from Proverbs, but since I wasn’t arguing scripture, I won’t deal with that right now. 🙂 Thanks, though, for the lively discussion. My only objection to you is how easily you throw around the label of hypocrite. I think you need to be a little more careful. I suspect Joy would speak out if her favorite author acted the way Driscoll has. You should get to know her a bit before being so loose and free with labels. Just sayin…

Bill, just for our discussion, how long have I been reading Joy’s blog? In both of your responses you refer that I should get to know her or read her posts. You obviously know for a fact how long I’ve been reading or else you wouldn’t be making the insinuations I haven’t been reading the posts or know Joy’s story in what appears an attempt to discredit my comments although that may not be the case.

Just because someone doesn’t see it like you, Bill, doesn’t mean they haven’t been reading or know Joy’s story.

And it’s clear our discussion isn’t going to really progress because you seem to think Driscoll was publicly flaunting his sin (based on your comment that Bell doesn’t do it; Driscoll being the other main subject of “sin” in the discussion.) So I’ll just wish you well and hope you have a great weekend.

Jason, I just have a few thoughts tonight, sort of random, off-the-cuff, because I’m fried but think I need to add something to this conversation before I head to bed. I’d be happy to continue the conversation here or on Twitter (or over email) if you’d like.

1. I think we all have to allow room for the Holy Spirit to prompt what we should do in a given circumstance. I’m trying to listen more carefully and follow the promptings I sense, and especially the ones NOT to do or say something. I always know in my gut when I shouldn’t post something, and every time I ignore it, I always regret it. Sometimes I just know that I shouldn’t go there. And sometimes I know I should.

2. I can’t be the internet police. I don’t think that’s what you mean, but a little of your discussion about being consistent about confronting people you agree with as well as ones you don’t kind of sounds like if you confront one person, you need to confront them all. I disagree with that, especially because of point #1 above, and also because I think we need to be careful about borrowing trouble.

3. Yes, I recognize that posting about Mark Driscoll could fall into the category of borrowing trouble.

And I’m off to bed. Have a great night guys, and remember that we are all brothers and sisters and we need to respectfully disagree.

Matt
on July 15, 2011 at 9:28 am

“When you are a public figure and you make a public mistake that involves the public, it is absolutely appropriate for those who see it for what it is to confront it publicly. In fact, I would argue that as Mark’s brothers and sisters in Christ, it is our responsibility to call it sin. Otherwise, we are complicit in the name-calling, gossip, and slander he encouraged his followers to participate in.”

Joy – I would love to hear your argument regarding our responsibility to call out “sin” in “public” figures….lest we be complicit in their sin. I feel like you are on such a slippery – slope here without defining some terms – I feel like your impaired logic is demonstrated by the comparison of number of followers you and Driscoll have – somehow that makes you “less public?” Maybe you could speak on the role of those in spiritual authority over Mark (i.e. his elders) and how their confrontation would be different and more necessary than a blogger.

To drive the point home, I do not think you want me or anyone else picking apart your posts for areas of sin and then engaging in a public campaign to call you out on that – when we dont have a relationship – being a “brother or sister” doesnt give me spiritual authority to do that (in my interpretation of Scripture).

So, remind me what makes me “complicit”? If I am not his elder, his friend, a church member, a podcast listener, or even a Facebook follower (where this sin occurred) – how does me, as a normal Christian, not rebuking him make me complicit (i.e. choosing to be involved) in his sin?

You can’t offer something up “for discussion”, only to immediately end the discussion. Not really playing fair. It’s feels a lot like, “I’m taking my ball and going home.”

OK, so, I am responding to what you said below, but there is no “reply” button, for some reason. Here’s the deal, for me. Again, I totally understand your hesitation about publicly criticizing Mark Driscoll, or any other Christian. We are on the same page on that one.

Secondly, in rereading my comments, I agree with you taking issue with me talking about length of time in reading a blog. It is actually quite irrelevant to this discussion. I apologize for harping on it, since it makes no sense.

I am unsure how this has gotten kinda negative, since I feel no animosity toward you, nor am I attempting to attack you. I am trying to understand exactly where you are having issue, here. Here are my two objections to what you have said, so please help me get it.

1) You are calling Joy a hypocrite, as well as others, in a very free and sure kind of way. The reason I kept asking how long you read the blog (still irrelevant), was to get to the core issue of how freely you accuse Joy and others “like her” of being a hypocrite. Your basis for the accusation and resulting label, as I understand it, is because Joy (and people like her) never criticizes pastors she likes. She only applies it to those who have different ideologies than she, and others like her, possess. That is a fairly big accusation to make, because it goes to her character. My question is, do you know, for a fact, that this assumption about Joy’s character has any basis in fact? Do you, for a fact, know with whom she agrees? Do you know, for a fact, that she has never criticized a like-minded pastor for bad behavior? I have seen her be critical, publicly on this blog, of certain behaviors and aspects of her own church, where she still joyfully connects with others and God. So, you are making a big, sweeping generalization about the character of a conscientious, Jesus-following human being. OK, but such a statement must have some backing and foundation in truth. Rachel Held Evans is friends with Donald Miller, a very public, Christian leader. Following Rachel for a while, if Donald Miller made similar chauvinistic, public statements, like the ones by Driscoll objected to in these blogs, she would be openly and equally critical. Public sin requires public rebuke.

2) This leads to my second objection: Driscoll has a history of making caustic, public statements that are obviously mean-spirited and anti-Christian. When Ted Haggard was caught with a male prostitute, Driscoll publicly made a statement along these lines: If Mrs. Haggard had taken care of business in the bedroom, Ted wouldn’t have had need to stray. He went on to talk about wives who let themselves go and are no longer attractive to their husbands deserving this treatment. So, as you talk about the objective nature of people bloggers like getting a pass, I would have to point to the fact that we like them, specifically because they don’t act like public idiots. They are much more careful about presenting themselves in a loving, kind, non-bullying manner. Criticizing Driscoll for this is not hypocritical, because Joy and Rachel, and others like them, were critical in a respectful manner. They were actually thoughtful in how they presented their cases, which is much more graceful than Driscoll’s behavior warrants. So, I am struggling with your point about picking and choosing whom one will criticize, when I see no evidence of that in these two. Yes, it does happen with many bloggers, but I am seeing your statements being more about general anger on your part, than something you can accurately vent in this venue.

So, please understand, again, I respect you. I am not trying to attack you. I have a lot of people reading my blog, and I have a responsibility to them, as well as others, to present myself in a careful way. I am also not looking for a fight. I simply want to understand. Others have made similar comments on this blog post to yours, so, if I have to go to them to understand this, because you’re done with me, I will do so.

Let me, respectfully, ask you this question: You seem to be giving Driscoll a pass on this. You seem to be willing to let this public behavior go. Admittedly, there is a ton of assumption in that on my part. At the very least, you seem willing to go after people who are critical of Driscoll in this case. That being said, have you also said the same things on the blogs that are critical of people with whom you disagree? In other words, is the “hypocrisy” label applicable to yourself for the same reasons you give for applying it to Joy? Have you made sure to call out the hypocrisy of criticism in EVERY case of public criticism?

All that being said, I am a progressive Christian, and I am very critical of conservative, Fundamentalist Christianity. I openly see it as the scourge of the Christian Faith, and I pray daily for that movement to die. I am not a hypocrite, because I am consistent in that stand. At the same time, I see the Gospel being about love. When I see other progressive Christians do non-loving things, I will criticize them publicly, as I hope they would do for me. The church is made up of hypocrites, because that’s where we all belong. How else can we be saved from our own sin?

So, please help me understand. I just want to get where you are coming from. If I walk away, still believing as I do, fine, as long as I understand where you are coming from as a human being. There is also the possibility that I will see your point and agree with you. Either way, you will have won over your brother. So, don’t walk away, stay with me in this. Peace.

I think you make an excellent point about following the leading of the Spirit. It is really more about when we feel God compelling us to speak out, and when we don’t.

Opinions are like certain orifices, as the saying goes. Everyone has one, and I would add that they almost all stink. On just about everything I read, I form an opinion, almost instantly, based on my upbringing, my value system, my choices, my environment, my biases, etc. I am really not very well-read on the whole climate change, global warming issue. If I read a provocative piece on that issue, I will immediately have an opinion. That is just human nature. I will not, even if my opinion is contrary to the writer, make a critical comment on that post. Why? Because my opinion is not an informed, educated opinion. It would be based solely in my own baggage. God may push me to research that issue, because He lights a spark in me about that topic. However, He has never urged me to comment, especially critically, about anything of which I’m ignorant. I am ignorant about most things. I have found, when I comment based on knee-jerk opinions, I always get into trouble. I immediately regret commenting, because the comment is all about me, and not a seeking of understanding and grace. So, I agree that criticizing, without the urging of the Spirit, becomes a crusade that is more about the critic than about grace. So one cannot run around the internet, criticizing everyone.

That being said, I think you have handled this subject with the utmost grace and respect. You have been above reproach. Driscoll’s public behavior, about which I have studied extensively, warrants a public, critical outcry. It also requires a clear, public apology. This is true from a biblical understanding, as well as a human one. You have not, in any way, put yourself on any kind of slippery-slope with this post. You have every right to say what you said. The idea of approaching Driscoll as a brother is moot. He does not, as he has publicly stated, allow any woman to speak into his life or criticize him. Not only that, but, as stated before, the “brother” approach doesn’t apply to public error. Paul called out public error publicly. Nothing else needs to be said.

I admire and affirm you for stepping up and speaking out. There is an entire oppressive regime that would try to silence you. Thank you for not being silent. Until everyone speaks out and stops giving abusive Christian leaders a pass (because they are male, Christian, and leaders), this kind of behavior will continue without apology. These people need to be called to account. You, Joy, are heroic in my opinion. Even if I disagreed with you, I think it takes guts to step out and have a voice. Don’t let anyone punish you for doing so.

Matt
on July 16, 2011 at 11:55 pm

Bill – two quick things….I guess I would be part of that “entire oppressive regime that would try and silence” Joy.

1. The Paul argument from Galatians is about one apostle confronting another on a gospel (i.e.what is salvation issue) – if you have warrant to confront publicly and on the internet, it is not with this verse.

2. My interest in this matter, and the use of the language of slippery-slope concerns the real issue at hand – this is NOT about public sin and public confrontation – this is about not liking Driscoll and using some broad statements like “public sin requires public confrontation” to justify telling everyone how much you dont like him.

I have not once defended his post – there is plenty not to like with him and plenty others you could lump in, but please be careful which arguments you choose to justify your feelings. I just think the rhetoric needs to be toned down when you tell others that if they don’t speak up and call out his sin, they are “complicit.” That is just not true – don’t abuse the following you have by picking which public sinners and which public sins to confront – their is no future in that and it only makes you look more like Driscoll.

I completely agree with you about being careful. No, I don’t see you as part of the regime. The slippery-slope argument is dangerous, and that is all that I saw in your comment with which I disagree. The reason is because of you taking her complicit comment on yourself. Defending Driscoll’s actions would be complicit. If you have nothing to do with the man, are not in his congregation, just like Joy commented later, unless you feel pressed by the Spirit to comment or criticize, you should not. In other words, those who are complicit, are those who are being pressed by the Spirit to speak up, but fail to do so. You are right in your objection to being called complicit. But, from what I saw, you shouldn’t be objecting, since you wouldn’t be in that group.

Not sure why you are objecting to me, or what your beef is here, but I don’t have an issue with anything you said, other than the slippery-slope argument. Peace.

Oh, yeah, and my application of the Paul vs. Peter text is dead on. Sorry. I took massive issue with your accusation that I misapplied it. I have been pastoring for over 20 years, and I am finishing my doctorate in Theology, specifically Biblical Studies. I’m not saying that to brag. I am giving my history so that you can be sure that I avoid proof-texting like the plague. I take such accusations very seriously. If the text is to be a living text, we need to ask ourselves how it would be applied today. We know that there are no actual apostles running around, so we need to go to the closest possible office: Pastoral Leaders. Driscoll is a pastoral leader, as is Joy. She writes on pastoral topics, and she has a valid voice and an audience. She is leading.

I’m struggling with this whole post and the negative comments, because no one is actually saying what is really at issue here. Joy is a woman. That is the elephant in the room. Rachel Held Evans is a woman. She had to shut down her comments because of the nasty negativity. That is the “regime” I was talking about. There is a blatant sexism in the Church that needs to be eradicated. I have been very openly critical on my own blog, but I never hear a peep of negative responses. I am a man. Now, before you get all bent, no, I am not calling you a sexist, Matt. I am sick to death of this oppressive, awful spirit that has infested the church, possibly as early as the Puritans, having its way. I will call it out whenever I see it. I have called out Driscoll a number of times, and no one got panicked or accused me of overstepping. The problem everyone is having is either, “Can’t we all just get along?”, or “Joy cannot call out a male leader as powerful as Driscoll, and neither can Rachel, because women are not allowed to challenge men.” I think that’s a load of crap, and I will not stand for it anymore. That is the lie that makes Driscoll think he can do what he wants. I will call it out wherever I see it.

Sorry for going on a tangent. I applied the passage perfectly. Case closed.

Joy, I have said my peace, and I will lay off this post. I will not comment again on this. Sorry if I offended any of your regular readers. Peace.

Matt,
regarding #2 above, my post was not about not liking Mark Driscoll. My post was about an incredibly inappropriate and hurtful comment that invited others to join in.

I am actually part of the same category of Christian that Mark is — my husband and I are Reformed-ish Baptist-ish followers of Jesus, though I really dislike the generalizations that come with labels like those. My faith is much more nuanced and complicated than can be packaged up in a single word.

Anyway, I do respect much of what Mark says — his call for men to grow up and be responsible is much needed today. It is *because* he so misrepresented what we believe Jesus calls us to be and do as his followers that I called on him to apologize and change. I am thankful that the elders in his church took him task and that he has listened, though time will tell if he changes. I also think it was incredibly tacky to plug his book in his “apology”… but it’s a start.